If the majority of people believe that what is taught is doing more harm than good, it will soon be stopped.

What is the other option? That a minority of people can say, 'unless you conform to our standards of belief, you have no right to voice an opinion or make decisions for the majority'?

So, when will Islam be stopped?

BTW - you do understand that "majority rules" is one of the absolute worst ways to manage a society? You have the minority issue completely backwards. If the majority of a community denies equal rights to a minority, that is where the problem lies. Minorities don't want to interfere with others rights, typically, they want equal rights, and usually have a difficult time getting them thanks to the stupid ignorance of majorities.

This is the inherent danger of competing gods and religions. If all are free to worship, but none are free to force their views on others, then we have balance.

3sigma

My response was not intended to provide an answer to your questions, rather to clarify your initial post. It was to say that there can be no direct empirical fact linking a god and this universe at request. And, that really, you are asking believers to prove a god's existence using science rather than just a facet of his being…

I’m asking you to establish the truth or validity of your belief. Can you do that? If you can’t then your belief is unvalidated and allowing yourself to believe something that is unvalidated is simply self-deception.

Quote

That's quite a statement regarding an entire people group. You and people who agree with you believe it to be irrational. Obviously the vast number of people who believe in a deity disagree.

Well then show us that we are wrong. Establish the truth or validity of your belief. Show us that it is based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Prove that it isn’t irrational. If your belief isn’t logical or reasonable then it is irrational and we are correct in our assessment of it and correct to distrust your judgment and ability to reason.

Quote

It sounds as though you are saying that unless people believe what you and others who agree with you believe, they have no business making important decisions that affect other peoples' lives.

No, that isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that unless people can validate their beliefs then they have no business making important decisions based on those beliefs and that affect other people’s lives. For example, many people believe that homosexuality is an abomination based on their irrational religious beliefs and the teachings of their religion. Based on that irrational belief, they oppose equal rights for same-sex couples. Many people believe that the theory of evolution is incorrect based on their irrational religious beliefs and the teachings of their religion. Based on that irrational belief, they oppose the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and instead propose that children’s heads be filled with unsupported nonsense that has no foundation in fact.

Quote

I would also like to say that most believers I've met are not gullible people. Maybe you've only met particularly gullible ones. Neither do these people dismiss science. Many of them pursue it and love it. Yet, they are Christians.

Your last statement there should be, yet they are gullible. Gullible means easily persuaded to believe something; credulous. Credulous means having or showing too great a readiness to believe things. Christians (and other religious believers) believe their god is real without a shred of solid evidence or a single sound argument to support that belief. You couldn’t be more ready to believe something than to believe it without a shred of solid evidence or a single sound argument.

Religious believers may think their belief is reasonable or logical, but it is invariably based on misapprehensions, fallacies, feelings, imagination, similar weak evidence or none at all. Religious believers are insecure enough to want the comforting promises of religions to be true and gullible enough to believe them. They allow their desire for emotional comfort to override their reason. Consequently, when it comes to a conflict between their religious beliefs and the truth, they will disregard reason and the truth and cling to their religious belief. When something threatens their religious beliefs, religious believers will oppose it. We see this in their opposition to same-sex marriages and the teaching of evolution. That is why we cannot trust their judgment and ability to reason and why we object to their making decisions based on their religious beliefs that affect the lives of others.

3sigma

If the majority of people believe that what is taught is doing more harm than good, it will soon be stopped.

The problem here is that many times the religious majority don’t think what is being taught is doing more harm than good. What’s more, they are basing their belief on faulty evidence and flawed arguments. At one point in the not too distant past, the religious majority believed that people should be burned alive for disagreeing with their dogma. In other places, the religious majority believed they had to sacrifice children to appease their gods. Even today, other religious majorities believe that people should be killed for blasphemy and apostasy. I’m guessing you cannot think of a single “good” that is unique to religion (that couldn’t have occurred without religion), but I can certainly think of “harms” that are unique to religions.

Quote

What is the other option? That a minority of people can say, 'unless you conform to our standards of belief, you have no right to voice an opinion or make decisions for the majority'?

Everyone should conform to reasonable standards of belief. Read my signature. People should base their beliefs on reason, logic and facts, not unvalidated feelings and emotions. As history has shown, when religious believers are allowed to dictate what must be believed based on nothing more than irrational dogma it can lead to burning and killing people for appeasement, heresy, blasphemy and apostasy.

So what is important is not whether a position can be demonstrated to be true, but whether the majority are in favour of that position being taught?

Almost. What is important is that the majority of people believe what is being taught to be true. If some idea can be convincingly demonstrated to be true, it should sway the majority.

But still, belief should trump fact when deciding what to teach?

In the Middle East, the overwhelming majority believe that Allah is god, presumably because that idea has been convincingly demonstrated to be true. I presume you wholeheartedly support the teaching of Islam wherever there is a majority of Muslims? I presume further that in any country where the Christian population becomes a minority (as is almost now the case in the UK) you would strongly support any moves to teach that Christianity is false?

A difficult question. Positive demonstrated fact should trump blind belief. However, in a situation where truth is in question, or where scientific facts are incapable or have been unable up to this point to prove a truth, then the majority should have the sway in what to teach.

Quote

In the Middle East, the overwhelming majority believe that Allah is god, presumably because that idea has been convincingly demonstrated to be true. I presume you wholeheartedly support the teaching of Islam wherever there is a majority of Muslims? I presume further that in any country where the Christian population becomes a minority (as is almost now the case in the UK) you would strongly support any moves to teach that Christianity is false?

Yes, I agree. In that situation Islam should be taught.

With your second point, I also agree to an extent. I agree that in a country where Christianity has become a minority, I would support the motions made by a fairly elected non-Christian official. Though, I would continue to protest in whatever way I could legally the points I disagree with.

If this non-Christian official was a good one, however, I would expect him to understand that Christianity is still a large minority and not to entirely disregard or bash Christianity in his choices. Perhaps, he would point out Christianity as an option but emphasize his beliefs. Or, rather than directly teaching that Christianity is false, he would merely teach that his belief was correct or believed by the majority.

To answer your question, I would entirely support the right of a non-Christian official to make decisions for the wider population but I would continue to protest the ones I disagree with.

Suppose just a handful of people believed the Christian message - a dozen, say, in a whole country that opposed their beliefs. In such a case, should not that tiny, tiny minority accept the will of the vast, vast majority and quit teaching and proselytising what they believe?

Or are you saying that - provided one feels strongly enough about one's beliefs - one should push for them to be taught no matter what the opinion of others? No matter what the majority may feel?

A difficult question. Positive demonstrated fact should trump blind belief. However, in a situation where truth is in question, or where scientific facts are incapable or have been unable up to this point to prove a truth, then the majority should have the sway in what to teach.

If we don't know the truth about something, we should have what's taught be decided by what amounts to a popularity contest? That's essentially what you're saying here.

Suppose just a handful of people believed the Christian message - a dozen, say, in a whole country that opposed their beliefs. In such a case, should not that tiny, tiny minority accept the will of the vast, vast majority and quit teaching and proselytising what they believe?

I don't think censoring free speech or suppressing minorities is a particularly good option for any scenario. I mean, this is how minorities turn into majorities and dramatic changes are instigated.

Quote

Or are you saying that - provided one feels strongly enough about one's beliefs - one should push for them to be taught no matter what the opinion of others? No matter what the majority may feel?

Yes, I agree. Within the bounds of the current leaders, laws and regulations, etc., people who genuinely believe something should always try to convince others of it and push for it to be taught. Particularly if this people group believes this thing to be urgent and important enough. If I believe something's blue and you believe it's red and for some reason we can't prove it, I don't really care enough or think it's important enough to keep convincing you of it and I should probably shut up. However, if what I genuinely believe has eternal consequences for you and other people I talk to, I think I have an obligation to continue to try to convince you.

If the majority of people believe that what is taught is doing more harm than good, it will soon be stopped.

You have a really bad habit of evading the actual points being raised. He didn't ask "what if the majority believe it to be harmful", he asked:

Quote

But what if it is harmful?

Should a majority be trusted entirely to assess harm based on personal opinion as well?

Quote

What is the other option? That a minority of people can say, 'unless you conform to our standards of belief, you have no right to voice an opinion or make decisions for the majority'?

I also notice that whenever you're responding to points pertaining to facts you immediately shift into the weasel territory of "belief". Tell me something - do facts mean anything on their own or do they first need a majority headcount of anyone with an opinion to validate them? If the former, how is your concern with democracy at all relevant here?

Sorry, if at least one group claims to know this truth, then what's taught should be decided by the majority.

What if their claim doesn’t have a shred of solid evidence or a single sound argument to support it? What if their claim is completely unvalidated and just a result of self-deception? Should we just let them teach their unsupported nonsense in public school science classes to the detriment of the children’s education?

You are evading the questions I’ve asked you in this thread, hobbes. Why is that? You also haven’t attempted to answer the questions in the OP. Please respond to the OP. Please validate your belief in your god.

Logged

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. – David Hume 1711–1776

You have a really bad habit of evading the actual points being raised. He didn't ask "what if the majority believe it to be harmful", he asked:

QuoteBut what if it is harmful?

Alright, if all parties agree that it is harmful then yes it should stop. Obviously you and I have different opinions of what 'harmful' is and so it is necessary to discuss this in terms of what we 'believe' to be harmful.

Quote

Should a majority be trusted entirely to assess harm based on personal opinion as well?

I don't understand what you think the other option is.

As for the last bit - most of what we disagree on comes down to belief or a differing opinion on what we consider factual or important. This is how many if not most philosophical ideas or psychological actions need to be discussed.

Alright, if all parties agree that it is harmful then yes it should stop. Obviously you and I have different opinions of what 'harmful' is and so it is necessary to discuss this in terms of what we 'believe' to be harmful.

Whether "all parties agree" is completely irrelevant to whether a harm actually exists. Reality is not contingent upon the thought processes of a human population. How could we ever determine a majority to be wrong if we begin from the assumption that the majority will always be drawn to the truth like children to the pied piper?

Quote

I don't understand what you think the other option is.

What about an informed approach? Why should simply having an opinion qualify you to determine truth? Do you consider a conclusion based on fact and knowledge of a subject to be on par with one reached from simply hearing someone pontificate about it?

Quote

As for the last bit - most of what we disagree on comes down to belief or a differing opinion on what we consider factual or important. This is how many if not most philosophical ideas or psychological actions need to be discussed.

Reality is not a democracy. The perspective that all ideas and conclusions are equally valid reduces truth to the outcome of a pissing match between dogmas vying for public adoration.

Whether "all parties agree" is completely irrelevant to whether a harm actually exists. Reality is not contingent upon the thought processes of a human population. How could we ever determine a majority to be wrong if we begin from the assumption that the majority will always be drawn to the truth like children to the pied piper?

Whether something is considered harmful IS contingent upon the thought process of a human population. If I can disagree with you over whether a particular action is harmful, then it is questionable whether this action is harmful. In a broad, most basic example, - you think teaching religion is harmful, I think it is helpful. Is harm actually, factually occurring? Well, that depends on what you view as harmful.

Quote

What about an informed approach? Why should simply having an opinion qualify you to determine truth? Do you consider a conclusion based on fact and knowledge of a subject to be on par with one reached from simply hearing someone pontificate about it?

You are assuming that this majority is an uninformed, ignorant, and unintelligent mass of people who are just concocting ideas up out of nothing. Do you think that simply because a group of people disagree with you, these people are instantly not basing any of their conclusions in fact or knowledge? Perfectly intelligent and reasonable people have come to a conclusion based in fact and knowledge that you are entirely wrong. If this is possible, truth is in question. As long as truth is in question, the majority should determine what is taught.

You are assuming that this majority is an uninformed, ignorant, and unintelligent mass of people who are just concocting ideas up out of nothing. Do you think that simply because a group of people disagree with you, these people are instantly not basing any of their conclusions in fact or knowledge? Perfectly intelligent and reasonable people have come to a conclusion based in fact and knowledge that you are entirely wrong. If this is possible, truth is in question. As long as truth is in question, the majority should determine what is taught.

Everything in the major religions is concocted out of nothing. All gods are imaginary, and thus their platforms and stories are built on absolutely no foundation of truth whatsoever. It's all made up.

Perfectly intelligent and reasonable people have come to a conclusion based in fact and knowledge that you are entirely wrong.

Then why have we yet to see a single theist present the facts and knowledge that show that we are wrong? How come theists still rely on Pascal's Wager, and Argument from Design, and no true Scotsman, and non-sequitur, and a host of other poor forms of logic and reasoning that are without evidence, rather than showing us the "facts" that demonstrate that there is a God? Gravity is a FACT, just as you assert that "God" is a fact. The evidence for gravity is, needless to say, rather overwhelming. That is why it is considered a fact. The evidence for God is non-existent, which is why we do NOT consider his existence a fact.

If I can disagree with you over whether a particular action is harmful, then it is questionable whether this action is harmful.

So it doesn't matter whether you actually have reasonable grounds to disagree, just that you disagree is enough. Is this because you can be blindly trusted as an impartial, informed authority or because truth is magic that would sweep you off your feet regardless of bias or understanding?

Quote

You are assuming that this majority is an uninformed, ignorant, and unintelligent mass of people who are just concocting ideas up out of nothing. Do you think that simply because a group of people disagree with you, these people are instantly not basing any of their conclusions in fact or knowledge? Perfectly intelligent and reasonable people have come to a conclusion based in fact and knowledge that you are entirely wrong. If this is possible, truth is in question. As long as truth is in question, the majority should determine what is taught.

I made no such assumption. You, however, are painting a majority as some engine of pure rationality driven solely to truth. When people base their conclusions on fact this should be demonstrated and never taken on faith. If we assume from the get-go that all disagreements are reasonable then one position can never more valid than another; likewise if we assume that anyone intelligent who seems reasonable will always gravitate towards a reasonable position. It's not enough to declare your conclusions logical and reasonable by fiat. At some point you have to have something to put on the table.

Given that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy why would popularity have any bearing on matters of truth? Or perhaps you consider logic itself to be controversial?

As long as truth is in question, the majority should determine what is taught.

The story above is just one of the many examples showing why this is a bad idea.

Yes, we question whether what you believe is the truth, hobbes, so please stop evading those questions and answer the OP. Establish the truth or validity of your belief that your god actually exists. Give us a factual description of your god. Provide enough solid evidence and sound arguments to prove its existence beyond reasonable doubt. Show us what distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination. In other words, show us that you are not simply deceiving yourself.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 04:51:54 PM by 3sigma »

Logged

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. – David Hume 1711–1776

Groups aren't automatically anything. Yes, of course they can make decisions that we would all consider wise. But that is happenstance, not something that is inevitable.

Indeedy. X-Factor/American Idol and their ilk gain audiences well into the millions. A documentary on sustainable food sources is watched by significantly less. Therefore, X-Factor is a better programme than the documentary.

Discuss.

Actually, DON'T discuss. Just take a vote and go with what the majority says, right hobbes?

I Believe

It is more probable that the Old Testament is a true account rather than a fictional account in my understanding.

My question to atheists is: "Where did Solomon get all his wisdom if not from God?"

It is written in 1 Kings Chapter 3 that Solomon asked God for wisdom. 1 Kings 3:16 and following demonstrates Solomon's wisdom when he made a ruling for 2 prostitutes. There are at least 2 places in the book of Proverbs that say Solomon wrote the proverbs written in that book.

What I'm saying is: the text in 1 Kings is born out by all the proverbs in the book of Proverbs.

The account of David found in 1st and 2nd Samuel is born out by all the psalms of David written in the book of Psalms

Not to mention all the prophecies that are found in the Old Testament narrative like the one about Josiah or the 70 years of exile in the book of Jeremiah and Daniel and Leviticus 26.

Welcome. I'm glad you've joined in on the conversation. Others may or may not agree to limit the discussion to Solomon, but whether they do or not, I have these questions for you.

Where did the Chinese of the same era get their wisdom? Where did the ancient civilizations of the Indus Valley get theirs. Where did the native Americans get theirs?

Could it be that cultures can, under the right circumstances, figure out right and wrong without the intervention of a god on high? That people can learn from their mistakes and from their successes? That human intelligence itself is sometimes adequate when it comes to running the ship of state?

It sounds hit-or-miss to me. Wisdom, that is. I know people today who demonstrate it on a daily basis. And I know people today that have no brain cells dedicated to the concept at all. This has probably been the case for tens of thousands of years.

Edit: Decided a smiley face was in order.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

But how can we verify if Solomon was indeed wise? All we have to go on is what a supporter of Solomon wrote about him afterwards.Would a modern day fanboy journalist say or write something bad about his favourite politician - or a king whose successors pay his wage and protect his family?

Can we even say for sure that there actually were two prostitutes fighting over a baby? Read up on the concept of "midrash" There is a lovely device in Italian culture when somebody makes up a good story/joke - they are comfortable in saying: "This story is so good it ought to be true!" And from there it only needs a couple of repeats to attain the status of truth, and then be asserted to be the truth in every subsequent retelling.

That is the nature of memes. It's completely natural that scribes add their own contemporary philosophies and embellish stories in a way they think will add appeal and make sense to readers.That is the process by which the scriptures evolved. It is why on the one hand some biblical prophecies seem to be fulfilled but on the other hand there are so many inconsistencies and contradictions. Multiple scribes doing their own little bit to improve the story - but inadvertently making a bigger hash of it because nobody is coordinating.

Another angle. If Solomon did get his wisdom from God, then where did God get all his wisdom from?

Logged

Git mit uns

a3dtot

Alright I will attempt to validate. This is actually what I was looking for. I am looking for an atheist point of view concerning my beliefs so this may be just the place. My belief is based on knowing that God exist yet not knowing who, what or where about him. (Him is not really correct. The God I know or believe I know is neither male nor female I'm just not comfortable with calling him it.) The God that I know is quite literally the existence of perfect love. I am not a religous person meaning I am not a church member nor do I subscribe to many of the religous beliefs that exist today. The proof of that existence has not been biblical in nature although most of what I understand does not conflict with most of what is contained in the Bible. What I have learned from the one I call God, is how to love and understand the people around me and myself. Through this communication process I have learned a great deal about myself. I would have to say that at the beginning of this learning process the main subject was perception or how I see the world around me. Since we see or judge the world we live in based on our own thoughts and feelings, it is often colored by our prejudices and desires. To correct my view of the world I had to learn to see others and life as they are not as I think or believe they are. This part of the enlightenment process has been very successful for me. I am very happily married and have quite a few children and grandchildren. My children actually respect and love me which I attribute to the person I became once I began to learn from the one I call God. For me the proof of God's existence is not in the physical world but in the realm of emotion. The corrections I have recieved were not of behavior but of how I understand the world around me. I do not trust people to act in a way that I would approve of but instead trust them to be themselves and act accordingly. This approach to life has allowed me to love my wife and children for who they are not who I want them to be. This is the proof of God's existence that I am talking about at least for me. I would like your views on this approach. Any arguments for or against would be appreciated.

Your comments and points of view are welcome, but the words you just posted do not pertain to this specific discussion. I am an administrator on the site, and want to make sure that your efforts are directed effectively. I would suggest that you go to our Introductions section (found here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,17.0.html) and tell us a little about yourself (you might cut and paste some of the above post if you want to). You will not be able to post an introduction until after you've posted in other discussions three times. And of course, selfish folks that we are, we prefer that they be quality posts that accurately reflect your point of view and that are on topic.

We don't discuss or argue anything serious in that section. It is meant as a place to welcome new members, not roast them.

Once you have posted three times you can start your own threads in other sections besides the Introductions one, and you might want to do that with a thread based on the theme of what you've already written above. We welcome inquiring minds as long as they present their own ideas (rather than simply cutting and pasting scripture, for instance) and are willing to listen to contrary points of view. Since most of us here are atheists, you can safely assume that we disagree with some of your assumptions. And if you don't mind the occasional barbed comment or people telling you that they think you are wrong, you can probably learn much. Both about atheism and your own beliefs.

And you might teach us something. Stranger things have happened.

We certainly don't jump all over newbies who post off-subject, so don't feel that this is any sort of a reprimand. It is meant as a welcome and to provide you with the information you need to contribute more effectively on this site. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

P.S. If you too are new but you are not a3dtot, this message applies to you as well. We welcome new members as long as you are here to contribute to the forum. Believers and non-believers alike. Any of you are welcome to PM me, and if you are new to forums, we have a welcoming committee made up of some of the sweetest atheists in the whole world who will, very seriously, help you transition into the wild and whacky world of online verbal abuse. Or just plain old discussions, if that is what you prefer.

Regular forum members: I'm just feeling sweet right now. Live with it.

ParkingPlaces

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.